77.193.103.27

Usage quotes

How many times does it need to be repeated that Wiktionary quotations are not supposed to show off a political opinion? SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 11:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

As literary political fiction and dystopian science-fiction, Nineteen Eighty-Four is a classic novel in content, plot, and style. Many of its terms and concepts, such as Big Brother, doublethink, thoughtcrime, Newspeak, Room 101, telescreen, 2 + 2 = 5, and memory hole, have entered into common usage since its publication in 1949. Nineteen Eighty-Four popularised the adjective Orwellian, which describes official deception, secret surveillance, brazenly misleading terminology, and manipulation of recorded history by a totalitarian or authoritarian state. In 2005, the novel was chosen by Time magazine as one of the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to 2005. It was awarded a place on both lists of Modern Library 100 Best Novels, reaching number 13 on the editor's list, and 6 on the readers' list. In 2003, the novel was listed at number 8 on the BBC's survey The Big Read. — This unsigned comment was added by 77.193.103.27 (talk).

An indirect personal attack calling me Orwellian? How could I not have foreseen this. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 12:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Might be there is no need to see any indirect personal attack here.

Temporary Block

In case you are unaware, this is a dictionary (you know, those things that define words), not anyone's personal political soapbox. Your quotations aren't very good anyways, see WT:Quotations. They don't really illustrate how the terms hard Brexit, Brexit, carcass are used. Thanks. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 17:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks, to provide the link to the interesting Wiktionary:Quotations page. I was unaware of it.

It is a very interesting page. I did not see any fussy criteria in it. Now, the four ideals looks fine for me; althought it might had better if I knew them before!

1. Illustrate the meaning by surrounding context, but without being too long — quotations where that word is the "star" of the sentence serve the reader better than lengthy passages which have the word incidentally buried in it;
2. Extend the time range that we have quotations for, or fill long time gaps;
3. Show the variety of contexts that a word is used in; and
4. Show the variety of genres, regions, and registers that a word is used in.

To request unblocking, when I am not interested in too fussy discussing:

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

77.193.103.27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

The choice of the examples is not easy because they have to be useful to the readers without giving an ideological vision, they have to be understandable even if extracted from their context and still be quite short, they have to stand for the diversity of uses without promoting one use over another.

Misunderstanding should not lead to blocking, when not necessary, because blocking can wrongly be perceived as a kind of personal attack(s). Discussing edits is a better thing because that might help sharing a common constructive approach, and so increasing the community. More specifically, in my view, when reverting are performed, the "edit summary" field could be used to explain the reverting; with no less than one specific word and/or one specific link.

Another point, which might be more sensitive, is that because there might be no Wiktionary consensual criteria to say something is political, personal views of some editors might appear as inconsistent, or at least difficult to apprehend to other ones.